SJUD-260513-1330

Let's call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order. It is 1:30 PM on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Before we begin, I want to thank Juliana Singh, the Senate Judiciary Secretary. Who makes sure we have a transcript of our meetings, and Doug Bridges from the Juneau LIO, who makes sure we have sound. At this time, I want to remind committee members and all those in the room to please silence your cell phones, especially me.

Present today, we have Senator Tilton, Senator Stevens, Senator Tobin, my vice chair Senator Keel, and myself, Senator Clayman. We have a quorum to conduct business. The first item on our agenda is confirmation hearings. The president has referred the following governor's appointment to the Judiciary Committee, the Alaska Judicial Council. Members have received the resume for today's appointee.

Today we have Mike Miller, former state representative and former state senator. Mr. Miller, since you are on the phone, please make sure you're not on a speakerphone as the sound quality is not as clear. If you want to go ahead and introduce yourself, state your name for the record and you can provide your your opening testimony or statement. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and no, I'm not on speakerphone. My name is Mike Miller, and I am actually calling from Fairbanks today, and I just have a very brief statement, and then I will certainly, at your discretion, open it up for questions, Mr. Chairman, for any questions that anybody might have for me.

But just a very brief statement, I have I've had a long service of public service to the state of Alaska, and this opportunity has come up, and I view it again as another opportunity to give some public service to the state of Alaska. It's been my belief that Alaska's had a very strong judiciary in the past, and I think it's incumbent upon people like myself, as I've been nominated as a lay member of the board, not an attorney, I view it as a— to try to, as we get the applications for the new judgeships or the judgeships that have become available, to send the most qualified people to the governor for appointment so that we can continue to keep a long and very vibrant judiciary in the state of Alaska. And Alaska has given me and my family very much, and this is a small way that I feel I can repay the debt that I owe the state of Alaska.

Alaska. And like I say, it's a very short opening, but, uh, I will certainly answer any questions to the best of my ability that any member of the committee may have. Thank you very much, members. Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, thank you, um, Senator Miller, for all of your years of service.

Uh, so it does seem like, um, in my experience, there's been attempts, uh, to vary—. To change the, uh, Judicial Council in all sorts of ways to make major changes to it, but it has survived, and it's, I think, done a remarkable job of seeing that we have good judges in this state. Would you have any comment on, you know, I see we've had Democratic governors and Republican governors, but still the system has worked. Do you have any comments on maintaining that independence of the council? I think it's very important to keep the council very independent.

And I think that the framers of the Constitution, you know, were pretty wise. And I've been fortunate that I actually knew a couple of them. And I knew a lot of people that were around during the Constitutional Convention and all the wisdom that went into that. And many of those, actually a couple of those advances to try to change the Judicial Council actually came to the legislature after I had already left the legislature. But I think we need to keep it as independent as possible because that's what makes the system work, is, in my opinion, that we try to keep politics out of it and try to be things based on the law and what the law says.

Thank you. Senator Tobin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too echo Senator Stevens' appreciation for your long service, Senator Miller. I have a question related to kind of the focus on how we select judges and the retention and also encouraging qualified members to seek the bar or seek nomination to these offices. And one of the one of the tasks that is put on to our Judicial Council members is to ensure that we have strong ethnic diversity, strong gender diversity in our judgeships to ensure we have breadth of experience and fair representation.

Can you speak a little bit to your personal ethos regarding those issues around diversity, equity, inclusion, and how you plan to implement those in terms of considering people for these judgeships? Well, certainly. I think that, and just looking at from my own personal experiences, I like to see the best people come forward, and I think, you know, our current law schools are turning out a lot of individual candidates who are very qualified across all ethnic groups and different diversities, and I think that Although my main guiding factor is, and we're all a little bit biased in how, you know, we have political views, whether left, right, or down the middle, but I think the guiding factor to me is, will this person in the judgeship, will they decide on issues, not necessarily on personal opinions, but what does the law say, you know? And following what the statute says. I'm a big believer in rule of law, having spent so many years at Yale writing laws.

I really strongly believe in that. But I think we're going to see a number of diverse candidates come forward in the next few years. And if they are qualified, have the education, and have the ability to judge things based on the law, I have no qualms in in submitting all those names that I feel qualified to the governor, and he ultimately makes that final choice. We are kind of, you know, the gatekeeper for all these folks coming forward to try to weed out some that, you know, may not measure up to our standards that we see, but the governor is— whoever that governor may be— is the final choice in that.

I hope that answered your question.

Mr. Miller, this is Chair. I have a, a, um, a few follow-up, a number of questions, but if I may get interrupted and let somebody else take over. During your service in the legislature, did you ever serve on the Judiciary Committee, either in the House or the Senate? A number of times in both bodies. And how was your experience on the Judiciary Committees?

Actually, I enjoyed my time on the Judiciary Committee. I served on the Judiciary a couple of times with, at the time, the chairman on the House side was Representative Greenberg, who I have utmost respect for, even though, you know, he is no longer with us. But I really enjoyed working with him. And on the Senate side, I served a couple of terms with Senator Taylor. When he was chair of the Judiciary Committee.

And I enjoy looking at, and again, I'm speaking as a layperson who never went to law school, but, you know, I enjoy looking at the law, how it's structured, and the things that are going there. I had a very enjoyable experience on the Judiciary Committee. We had wide-ranging issues, and sometimes we had very lively discussions in the committee, but I enjoyed it. I think I would fit in there on the Judicial Council. So you had made a couple of references in terms of the framers' interest in having the council select among the most qualified, and then you also talked in your comments to Senator Tobin about sending qualified folks to the governor.

I specifically want to ask about, is your perspective that the council should be sending the all qualified applicants to the governor or only the most qualified? Well, I think that it depends on how many people have also applied for a particular judgeship. And I know under the Constitution, we have to send 2 or more. And sometimes, you know, that becomes— I'd like to send the most qualified, but sometimes there might be cases where an individual is qualified, and, you know, maybe the governor should have a— be able to look at that person also. Because, again, it's the governor's choice of whoever that sitting governor may be at that time.

I guess what I'm saying is if somebody is just glaringly not qualified, I would have a hard time sending that to the governor. Well, I'll note, are you familiar with the bylaws of the Judicial Council? I know you barely were appointed 10 days ago or so, but have you had a chance to review the bylaws recently? I have been trying to catch up. I have sitting in my office here, I have 7 rings of binders I have gotten since I was appointed, and I need to carry at least 6 of them back to Anchorage for this meeting.

And I'm looking at about 50 pounds of paper, so I am working my way through them. I I have, uh, I, I started that binder but haven't got all the way through because I wanted to look at the, uh, some of the nominees for the judges, and I'm, I'm making my way through them. Uh, so the answer to your specific question, no, I have not gotten to the bylaws. Well, I, and I hope that most of the 6 binders or 7 binders are about the applicants and not about the bylaws, but I will just note— and they are, yes, I'm, I'm reassured I'll just note in Article 1, Section 2 in the bylaws, the bylaws specifically state about individuals who stand out as the most qualified and that the nominations will be from those, from the most qualified applicants. And it's specifically in the bylaws.

And then again, in Article 7, Section 4, they talk about candidates who stand out as the most qualified. And that's so that appears throughout the bylaws. And my initial question is, although you may have a somewhat different view about somebody who is qualified but may not be among the most qualified, do you feel like as a member of the council you would follow the bylaws' requirements to only nominate to the governor those that are among the most qualified? Well, I, like I say, I'm a very strong believer in the rule of law, and Sophia, like I say, have not gotten that part of the bylaws yet. But if that's what it states, that would be my guiding principle.

Okay. Thank you. And I, I've heard from some folks that watch the council more than I do that there's every 6 years the council bylaws come up for review. I think that process is going on currently. And, and if, for example, there were discussions and suggestions to change that standard from most qualified to qualified, but if that effort to change the bylaws did not result in a change and the bylaws stayed as most qualified, sounds like I, I could count on you to continue to look for the most qualified and not, not follow a different rule than what's in the bylaws.

Well, I think our objective here is to have the best judiciary that we can find, and I think most qualified is probably a very defining principle there. So I had some specific questions. I understand back in the early 2000s you were represented by a man named James Bopp, an attorney from Indiana who's often involved in legislation— or not legislation, but litigation regarding pro-choice activities. Did Mr. Bopp ever represent you?

My name was grabbed because I I was a pro-life legislator back in the day. I never had a conversation with the gentleman, no. Okay, because I found a lawsuit in which your name appeared in federal court. It was Alaska Right to Life and Mike Miller versus Jeff Feldman and a bunch of judges that were up there. That is correct, yes.

Okay, so my understanding of that lawsuit was that there was an effort by Alaska Right to Life, and you were involved with that effort, to get judges that were sitting judges to answer questions about their position on the pro-choice, anti-choice perspectives. Do you remember those efforts? Yeah, I do remember that, and I've since changed that position. As I've been out of the legislature, and sometimes I am guilty of doing the same thing that I have said I should not do, and sometimes we judge from our viewpoint in life. And as I have sat back for the last 20-some years since being out of the legislature, I've been able to reflect on a few things.

And, you know, and one of the things that I reflected upon is that I'm— I guess, in long short, I disagree where I was now because I believe that whether I come from the right or I come from the left or I come from the middle, I really want judges to judge. And I hope that they will do the same thing in as much as that they will judge upon the what what the law says. Now, if I come— if they come down with the position that I disagree with, well, that's— if they're judged upon the law, so be it. Then it's incumbent on people like myself to come to you, the legislature, to change the law, and then you might have had a different outcome. But I, I, I have backed off from that position literally 25 years ago, and, and I appreciate that.

I guess that That leads to a follow-up question I had. Let's say there's a judge that's up for retention and you're looking at judges as part of the Judicial Council evaluating judges for retention. And there's a judge that's ruled on a matter in which you may have a personal disagreement with that judge, but their ruling is consistent with Supreme Court, Alaska Supreme Court decisions. And so although you may personally disagree with the decision, would the fact that you disagree with that cause you to vote against that judge even though he's— he or she is ruling consistent with what Alaska law is? If they follow the law, no, because that is my underlying principle.

If they follow the law— now, I may not like the law, and if I don't like the law, then it's incumbent on myself and other people to come to you folks and try to change the law. But if they follow the law as written, I don't have no qualms with that. I might not like the decision, but they followed the rule of law. And so, turning back briefly to that 2004 lawsuit in federal court, one of the defendants in that lawsuit is a woman named Patricia Collins, and at the time in 2004, she was a superior court judge who had gotten this questionnaire and had, I think, not responded to the questionnaire consistent with counsel she had received, and she is now retired as a judge, but she's on the Judicial Council. And so my question is, if you are confirmed to the Judicial Council and you're on the council with, with now retired Judge Collins, would you having been a plaintiff against her in a lawsuit cause any difficulty for you to serve on the council with her?

No, not at all. It's, uh, uh, you learn real quick in the legislature, you know, sometimes you're You know, and I'm not saying because actually my name, they asked me if they could use my name in that particular lawsuit, but because, you know, I had just run a campaign for the US Senate against Senator Mikulski and I had a fairly high name recognition at the time. I doubt they would have asked me, you know, had that scenario not had played out. But it seems like time in the political world is a You know, one of your— you got to be careful about making enemies this way because— and I certainly would have no problems serving with her because, you know, on one issue, you're the person that is debating against you on a certain issue. On the next issue, maybe your strongest ally.

So you got to be careful that, oh, just because you did this, I can't talk to you. That's ridiculous. I expected that to be your answer, but I wanted to just be sure. Certainly. Then in 2014, you, for a period of time, were running— you entered the primary against Click Bishop, who was, I think, just finished with his first term in the Senate, entered that race initially, and then a few weeks later withdrew from the race.

Can you tell me a little bit about your decision to both enter the race and then your decision to withdraw? Sure. Actually, Senator Bishop and I got together one afternoon at South and we had a good talk and conversation. And yes, I did enter, but my heart really wasn't in it after we had a good conversation. I didn't have a problem in supporting Senator Bishop for the Senate seat, and hence I was here.

And then the last area of questions I want to ask about, I, again, as a lawyer in the legislature, sometimes I hear from lawyers that have inquiries, and they were saying that in 2024, the Judicial Council was looking at judges up for retention, and a couple of the members wanted more information than the council usually received. And even though they, again, had the binders you're describing and lots of information, 2 of the members, I think, abstained from voting on whether to recommend retention or not recommend retention. And my question for you is, if you've got the kinds of materials that are typically received for these kinds of decisions, even if you might like to know more, will you be comfortable voting either yes or no with the information you receive and not hold out for saying, well, I need a whole bunch more information, even though that's what's usually provided? Provided? No, that's the information that the Judicial Council has provided.

That's the information that I go on. And, uh, and quite frankly, I'd be a little bit leery of information coming that's not coming from the council because I don't know where it would be coming from. I don't know what biases they're leaning towards. So my particular would be go with the information that I have gotten, that I have received from the the Judicial Council for it. Okay.

From the executive director. And then I think the last question I have, and then I'll see if anyone else has other questions. The lawsuit that was, the federal court lawsuit that you were a party to, was very specific about trying to ask judges their questions, or their position with regard to being pro-choice or pro-life. And if you're confirmed for the council, is that a question you would be asking applicants, or is that something you would be comfortable not asking? Absolutely not.

Like I say, you know, I may have an opinion one way or the other, but it is going, you know, judge on the law. The only concern I have, will the person going forward judge on the law as it is written or as interpreted? I'll be honest, I don't think that's necessarily— I don't think personally that's not an appropriate question coming from me. I would not answer that. I would not ask that question.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's all the questions I have for you, Mr. Miller. Let me see if anyone else— nope, I see no other questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and I appreciate your time. Don't leave yet because we get to do public testimony before that. Oh, certainly. Koranga. You actually aren't required to listen to the public testimony, but probably you ought to.

Sure. I'm going to open public testimony for today's hearing on the Alaska Judicial Council. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify with regard to the Judicial Council nomination? And I have no one online, so hearing and seeing no one, we're going to close public testimony. And any final comments from members of the committee?

Hearing and seeing none, Senator Tobin.

Going a little out of order. The Judiciary Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the Governor's appointee and recommends that the following name be forwarded to a joint session for consideration: Mike Miller for the Alaska Judicial Council. This does not reflect intent of any members to vote for or against the individual during any further sessions for the purposes of confirmation.

Mr. Miller's name will be forwarded to the joint session, which will be tomorrow. And we will take a brief at ease to sign the paperwork.

I think, Mr. Miller, if you were adding something, please go ahead and add it. I banged the gavel too quickly. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I did not mean to interrupt your meeting. No, did you have any closing comments? I didn't think you had, but—.

No, I do not. All I wish to do is thank the committee Thank you for being on time and, and answer all our questions. And now we will go at ease.

Back on record. Our second and last item on the agenda is Senate Bill 190, Uniform Act Guardianship Conservatorship, sponsored by Senator I'm Senator Kiel. This is the 4th hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today it is my intention to take amendments on Senate Bill 190 and look to the will of the committee to move out Senate Bill 190. The only amendments we received came from the bill sponsor's office.

As we go through the amendments, Senator Kiel's staff or Senator Kiel will explain each of them. Amendments were distributed to members in advance of the hearing and are available on BASIS. We will start with amendment number— I better find the amendments. We're going to start with Amendment Number 1, which is also A1. Senator Keel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment Number 1. No. A.1. I'll object for purposes of discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the easiest one. Amendment Number 1 just moves the effective date out one more year so as to give everyone the time to implement this bill. I expect we will rush it to the floor and through the other body immediately.

But at minimum, we will move out a CS from this committee with a workable effective date. The only thing I can tell you, Senator Kiel, is don't come and talk about getting it into the crime bill. I will withdraw my objection. Any further objection to Amendment Number 1? Hearing and seeing none, Amendment Number 1 is approved.

That brings us next to Amendment Number 2. Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment Number 2. Which is A.7.

A.7. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Amendment Number 2 removes, I think, an overly broad provision in the model act that Senate Bill 190 is based on.

The model act allows for some third parties to override the decision of a guardian or conservator in situations where they don't believe that the guardian or conservator is acting appropriately in the best interest of the person who is protected. This was flagged by a parent of a young Alaskan, and what Amendment 2 does is remove that sort of third-party I guess, permission to override the court and requires someone who believes that a guardian or conservator is not acting in the best interest to go to the court and get the conditions changed, get court oversight.

I will withdraw my objection to Amendment No. 2. Is there any further objection to Amendment No. 2, A.7? Hearing and seeing none, A.

Amendment number 2A.7 is approved. Brings us next to Amendment number 3A.10. Senator Keele. Mr. Chairman, I may have described the wrong amendment. Mr. Chairman, I apologize.

The previous description was of Amendment number 3. If it is acceptable to you, Perhaps we could dispense with Amendment Number 3 and then go back to Amendment Number 2 and I'll tell you what it actually does. So as to Amendment Number 3, we will note that the comments as to previously described Amendment Number 2 are really the comments intended for Amendment Number 3. Is there any—. I will move Amendment 3.

And I will ask, is there any objection to Amendment Number 3 in light of the prior comments that intended for Amendment Number 3. Hearing and seeing no objection, Amendment Number 3 is approved. Let's return to Amendment Number 2. I will unilaterally, as Chair, rescind our earlier action on Amendment Number 2 and go back to Amendment Number 2. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for injecting chaos into this. That was not my intention. All right. So—. Your staff wouldn't have done that, I can tell you.

No, indeed. Agreed. So I will move Amendment Number 2, which is A.7, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to what it actually does. I will first object for purposes of discussion, and now, now we are truly focused on Amendment Number 2. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This deals with financial protective orders, and this returns the financial protective orders in the bill to a structure that mirrors what we currently have in Alaska law. What we currently have for financial protective orders is stronger than what is in the model act, and thus in the version of 190 that we— was introduced. And I want to thank the Alaska court system for flagging the difference. And I think that with the understanding I have, that we should adopt the stronger protection for the individual when it comes to financial protective orders. Alright, I will withdraw my objection.

Is there any further objection to Amendment No. 2A.7? Hearing and seeing none, Amendment No. 2 Really and truly is adopted by the committee. That brings us to Amendment No.

4A.21. Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment No. 4, Which I am looking carefully, is A.21.

And I will object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Amendment number 4 removes the requirement that, uh, pers— for personal service and personal notification, um, in these processes. Personal service, uh, hand-to-hand can be very difficult to accomplish, especially in rural Alaska. This allows for other forms of notice to be provided.

This modification to the uniform law was recommended by the, the WINGS group, the Working Group on Guardianships, and I'll forget the other parts of that acronym, as an Alaska-based modification. Importantly, nothing in Amendment 4 changes who gets notice. Nothing in Amendment 4 changes when they get notice.

In that description, I will withdraw my objection. Is there further objection to Amendment Number 4A.21? Hearing and seeing none, Amendment 4A.21 is approved. Adopted or approved. That brings us to Amendment Number 5, A.22.

Senator Keel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment Number 5, which is A.22. Now object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, maybe the tiniest bit of background. In Alaska currently, there is the possibility for a temporary guardianship or a temporary conservatorship. Temporary is— isn't particularly constrained as to time. The bill changes that. The bill goes with emergency guardianships or conservatorships, and they are limited to 60 days.

There's the possibility that they can be renewed once before a full hearing and the full process.

In working with advocates and interested folks on this bill. This suggestion came up, and I agree with it, to do what Amendment Number 5 does, which is— thank you for the opportunity to give you the background— Amendment Number 5 strengthens the sideboards around that emergency guardianship or conservatorship. It puts in clear evidentiary standard. There has to be clear and convincing evidence evidence that there is an imminent danger to the person who is being protected. So physical health, safety, or welfare.

It also requires that there be a court visitor or guardian ad litem, as appropriate, appointed. And as always, the person gets an attorney. If they have resources, they pay for it. If they are indigent, they— the state pays for it. That is the same throughout the bill.

So that is what Amendment Number 5 does. It puts sideboards on these emergency guardianships and conservatorships.

With that explanation, I would— oh, question, Senator Stevens? I just wonder if you could define for me guardian ad litem, what that actually means. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'll bring my staff member Hawk to the table. She has done remarkable work on this bill and she won't speak to the wrong question.

For the record, Aurora Hawk, staff to Senator Kiel. In answer to Senator Stevens' question, Mr. Chairman, the guardian ad litem acts on— in the best interests— is provided through the Office of of public advocacy to act in the best interest and to advocate for the best interests of the individual. They are often associated with child-in-need-of-care— of aid proceedings.

Thank you. And Senator Stevens, one of the interesting features I've kind of come to understand over the years is that they're not actually the lawyer for the minor. If the minor— the minor might want one thing and their lawyer is supposed to advocate for that. The guardian ad litem is supposed to make a recommendation to the court as to what is in the best interest of the child. And so they don't always line up with what the attorneys are advocating for.

Any other questions for Senator Keel? Hearing and seeing none, I'm going to withdraw my objection of amendment. 5A.22. And seeing no further objections, Amendment Number 5A.22 is adopted. That brings us next to Amendment Number 6A.23.

Senator Keogh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment Number 20— Number 6, which is A.23. And I'll object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment primarily clarifies a couple of ambiguous sections about who gets a lawyer, who gets appointed, and who pays. By and large, it maintains current practice, not always exactly current law. So, what Amendment Number 6 accomplishes is it makes clear that a respondent in one of these proceedings, someone who will be protected We have to remember that these protections are also a limit on the person's liberty. Um, that person is entitled to be represented by an attorney, and if they can't afford one, they will get a lawyer appointed, uh, through the Office of Public Advocacy. Um, it also clarifies, uh, throughout the bill that same cost distribution I described earlier so that, um, If the person who's the subject of the petition has resources, they will pay for their own attorney.

If they do not have the resources, the state will pay for that attorney, just as we do now with OPA. For court visitors and for professional evaluators, those are funded through the court system. Those are not charged to the respondent or the petitioner. And then—.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing that is important to flag about this amendment is it does add one provision I have not described previously. And it's intended to avoid abuses of this system. If a petition is malicious, frivolous, or without cause, the person filing it is responsible for all of the costs I just described. The court can assign them to pay. And if, Mr. Chairman, I might ask Ms. Hawk to fill in, I may have left one gap in that description.

Ms. Hawk. Mr. Chairman, the provision allows the court to assign all or a portion of the costs in that condition. Fair. Thank you. Senator Tobin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have— I have 2 questions, I think, and they're more of just because I'm— because of curiosity, not in opposition to the amendment in any way, shape, or form. But I'm looking on page 3, and I'm curious, just when it says the role of the attorney and that there is an attorney that will be appointed, and then in the preceding section starting on line 21, it says the Office of Public Advocacy, and it seems it changes from attorney, attorney of public advocacy, and then Office of Public Advocacy. And I'm assuming they're all just the same thing, and it's a different way of saying an attorney from the Office of Public Advocacy will be appointed. It's just written differently.

This is what I'm— this is my assumption. Senator Tobin, I was actually trying to follow the lines on page 3, and I couldn't find—. Sorry, it's the— so the entirety of page 3 It starts off with the appointment and role of an attorney, and it talks about an attorney will be appointed, and then it says, uh, appoint from the Office of Public Advocacy. And then again on line 21, it has that new subsection, then it says, uh, to employ an attorney, and the court shall appoint the Office of Public Advocacy. And so I'm just curious, just kind of the difference of how they phrase an attorney or the Office of Public Advocacy, and it seems to be that they just changed the terminology.

Mr. Chairman. Senator Kiel. If a respondent doesn't have an attorney, the court will appoint an attorney. That is a separate question from whether the respondent has the resources to pay for an attorney. When the respondent does not have the resources, OPA.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I do have one second question. Mr. Chairman. Sure.

I would just add to that piece from Senator Keele. As I understand it, if the court concludes that the family has the resources to pay, the court will appoint the lawyer and the family will pay. And when the— and then when the— if the family doesn't have the money to pay for the lawyer, that's when the public advocate is appointed. But it's not a situation where somebody that can afford to pay doesn't want to pay, the court's essentially finding they're entitled to counsel and making sure they have counsel as the person that is subject to the guardianship. Thank you.

I appreciate that. And I ask these questions as some of us have older parents, and some of these questions might be things that we have to tackle. And so it's helpful for the public to understand the different roles and responsibilities. With regards to the assets to pay, how is that evaluated? Is it on a sliding scale?

Is it that if you have a dollar more— oh darn, he just left. If you have a dollar more, you will be on the hook for all of it? Do we know how that is determined?

Through the chair to Senator Tobin, I do not know and I lost my lifeline. Mr. Chairman, I will note the The bill does not change the methods that the court system uses to make those determinations today. And it is fair to say that on occasion the Office of Public Advocacy goes back to the court and says, "Your Honor, this person does have the resources. You can't appoint us at this point." And there's a court process for that. But the bill does not change the factors that the court considers.

I can list those for you another time. Will do so. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions? I will remove my objection to Amendment Number 6A.23. Is there further objection? Hearing and seeing none, Amendment Number 6 is approved or adopted. It brings us last, I believe, to Amendment Number 7A.24.

Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment Number 7, which is A Mr. Chairman, this is Representative Dot 24. And I'll object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This changes and clarifies the periodic review of these protective arrangements. Current statute provides for a review of guardianships and conservatorships every 3 years, which is a goal. But, uh, what Amendment A.24, what Amendment 7 does, um, is makes that a requirement. It does make it a little less frequent. It moves it from 3 years to 5 years.

Um, and, uh, although a court is allowed to, uh, order a review more frequently than that, the minimum is at least once every 5 years. In addition to the things that are currently required in those reviews. Um, this amendment will specifically require, uh, the court visitor to report on whether the protective arrangement is at the right level. Is it, uh, more restrictive than needs to be? Should something short of a full conservatorship, for instance, uh, some other protective arrangement, which is one of the the centerpieces of the bill, this more flexible approach.

They should specifically make recommendations as to whether that's the appropriate step.

I don't see any questions, and I'm going to remove my objection in light of the explanation. Is there any further objection to Amendment No. 7? Hearing and seeing none, Amendment No. 7A.24 is adopted.

I got to catch up.

That concludes our amendments. Before looking to the will of the committee, would the bill sponsor's office like to make any closing comments? Senator Keele. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I appreciate all the work that the committee members have done reviewing this bill, looking it over, talking with my staff. I know you have all heard from advocates about the bill in the senior citizen community and the disability advocacy community, among others.

And I look forward to working more on this bill in days to come.

Hearing and seeing no other questions from the committee, Senator Tobin. I move—. Now it makes sense why you have the motion sheet. I move Senate Bill 190, work order 34, S.194-LS0496/A, as in Anchorage, as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing and seeing no objections, Senate Bill 190 moves from committee.

Please stay behind after adjournment to sign the paperwork. We will now adjourn for the day. Our next meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 15th. I will note that because we made it through the guardianship bill, it's quite it's possible we will hear no bills anymore this year. I can't guarantee that, but this, this could be our last meeting.

If it is, I want to thank everyone for serving on the committee this session. And if we do have another meeting, I will look forward to seeing you then. But we stand adjourned. The time is now 2:14 PM.